Central Information Commission
Samoda Nand Tiwari vs Syndicate Bank on 4 September, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
िशकायत सं या / Complaint Nos. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126679,
CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/129154, CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/129737 and
CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126683
Samoda Nand Tiwari ... िशकायतकता
/Complainant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO, Syndicate Bank, ... ितवादीगण /Respondents
Regional Office, Morya
Tower, Dak Bangla Road,
Patna
Relevant dates emerging from the complaints:
RTI: CPIO: FA: FAAO: Complaint: Hearing:
13.01.2017 31.01.2017 15.02.2017 17.03.2017 02.04.2017 28.08.2018
09.01.2017 31.01.2017 16.02.2017 29.03.2017 02.04.2017 28.08.2018
29.12.2016 31.01.2017 13.02.2017 17.03.2017 11.04.2017 28.08.2018
19.12.2016 25.01.2017 10.02.2017 13.03.2017 12.04.2017 28.08.2018
Page 1 of 6
ORDER
1. The Complainant filed the above mentioned four complaints against the CPIO, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna with respect to his four RTI applications. All these complaints are being clubbed together for hearing and disposal to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
File No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126679
2. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking information on three points pertaining to the bank account no. 74XXXXXXXXXX90 of Kamla Food Processing Industry, including, inter-alia, (i) whether the amount of Rs. 28,26,376.80 was the ledger balance of the said account as on 14.05.2011 or 31.08.2011 and (ii) the ledger balance of the said account as on 31.05.2011.
File No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/129154
3. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking information on three points pertaining to the bank account no. 74XXXXXXXXXX90 of Kamla Food Processing Industry, including, inter-alia, (i) whether the loan sanction letter was not available on record or no such loan was sanctioned and (ii) In case the loan was sanctioned, then why is the sanction letter not available on records?
File No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/129737
4. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Page 2 of 6 Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking a copy of appraisal note and process note of the loans sanctioned on 01.02.2008 in the bank account nos. 74XXXXXXXXXX91 and 74XXXXXXXXXX43 of Kamla Food Processing Industry.
File No. CIC/SYNDB/C/2017/126683
5. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna seeking information on three points pertaining to seizure of movable and immovable property of Kamla Food Processing Industry on 15.07.2013, including, inter-alia, (i) whether physical verification of the stocks seized is mandatory, and (ii) the total number of labourers and number of days it took to conduct physical verification of the stocks seized.
6. The complainant filed four complaints before the Commission on the grounds that information has been denied by the CPIO under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act stating that the bank has filed a recovery suit in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna for recovery of the bank's dues in which the complainant is also impleaded as a respondent and that the said suit is pending. The complainant requested the Commission to inquire into the matter and direct the CPIO to provide correct and complete information to him. He also requested that penalty be imposed on both the CPIO and the FAA under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act for giving incorrect information, and that disciplinary action be recommended against both the CPIO and the FAA and that compensation be awarded to him.
Page 3 of 6Hearing:
7. The complainant was not present despite notice. The respondent Shri Gadakari Sriniwas, Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Regional Office, Patna, attended the hearing through video conferencing.
8. The respondent stated that a loan of Rs. 26.50 lakhs was given to Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill) in the year 2011. The borrower failed to repay the loan amount and a recovery suit was filed by the bank before DRT, Patna. The complainant was also one of the respondents in the said matter before the DRT. Since, the information sought in all the above said RTI applications pertains to Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill), in which the complainant is one of the partners and at the relevant time the recovery suit was pending before DRT, Patna, the information sought was denied under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the disclosure of information would have impeded the aforesaid proceedings. He admitted that the said recovery suit has been finalized and a decree has also been issued. The respondent also stated that the complainant and his family members have filed more than 50 RTI applications in the Bank, seeking repetitive information as a tool to impede the proceedings for recovery of dues and to waste the valuable time of the Bank officials. The respondent added that in compliance with the Commission's earlier order dated 31.05.2018 in similar matters the information sought for has been provided to one of the partners of the Kamla Food Processing Industry (Rice Mill) vide letter dated 09.07.2018.
Decision:
9. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and perusing the records, observes that in response to all the above said RTI applications the CPIO denied information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act stating that a recovery suit was pending before DRT, Patna. However, this Page 4 of 6 exemption has been incorrectly invoked as mere pendency of a matter before a court of law is not sufficient justification for withholding the information. The Commission further observes that the exemption was claimed due to an error of judgment on the part of the CPIO concerned. However, it cannot be said that the CPIO had acted consciously and deliberately with a malafide intention to provide incorrect or misleading information to the complainant. Further, no penalty can be imposed for wrong judgment. Moreover, in a decision in the matter of Kripa Shanker v. Central Information Commission- judgment dated 18.09.2017 in W. P. (C) No. 8315/ 2017, the High Court of Delhi held that:
"....13... Indisputably, merely because the view taken by a PIO is not correct, it would not lead to an inference that he is liable to penalty. There may be cases where the PIO is of the view that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. If this view is subsequently found to be incorrect, it would not necessarily mean that he would be subjected to penalty. The question of imposition of penalty depends on whether the conduct of PIO is reasonable and whether there is any bonafide justification for denial of information; penalty is levied only if it is found that the information was denied without reasonable cause."
10. In view of the above ratio, in the absence of any malafide intention, it would not be appropriate to initiate any action for imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
11. With the above observations, all the four complaints are disposed of.
Page 5 of 612. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sudhir Bhargava (सुधीर भाग व) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) दनांक / Date 29.08.2018 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) S. S. Rohilla (एस. एस. रोिह ला) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26105682 / [email protected] Addresses of the parties:
1. The Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Syndicate Bank Regional Office, Legal & Claim Section, Morya Tower, 2nd Floor, Morya Lok Complex, Dak Bangla Road, Patna, Bihar - 800001
2. Shri Samoda Nand Tiwari Page 6 of 6